CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Crofton Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk management and safeguarding systems were safe. They recommended reviewing the timing of fire drills, and noted a shortfall in cleaning high-touch points during a COVID-19 outbreak.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, clear staff roles, quality checks and action plans that supported improvements. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback and developing the home.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and improvements, but fire drills did not always cover evenings and weekends.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 February and 1 March 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and contacted other professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, enough staff were in place, risks were assessed and people felt safe. Staff were described as kind, caring and friendly. The home had systems for checking quality and acting on problems.
There were some points to improve. Fire drills did not always take place at night or later in the evening, and cleanliness of high-touch points was not as robust as it should have been on one day during a COVID-19 outbreak. The home was no longer in breach of regulations found at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. People received them on time, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely. This included administration, storage and disposal.” from the report
Caring staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and friendly. Staff took time to support people.
“All of these carers have a great sense of humour mixed with an incredible sense of caring for everyone.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and robust recruitment checks, including references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.
“Enough staff were employed to meet people's needs and a safe recruitment system was in place.” from the report
Improved management
The home had quality checks, action plans and a manager who was visible and available. Improvements identified at the previous inspection had been made.
“A range of quality assurance audits and checks were in place to monitor the service and make improvements.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents, incidents and complaints were recorded, reviewed and investigated. Actions were taken to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Appropriate actions were taken to reduce the risk of re-occurrence.” from the report
Fire drill timing
needs fixingFire drills had taken place, but they did not always cover night-time or later evening conditions. The provider was asked to review the days and times of drills so evenings and weekends are included.
“Fire drills had taken place, but not always at night or later in the evening.” from the report
High-touch cleaning
needs fixingDuring a COVID-19 outbreak, staff were not as consistent as they should have been in cleaning high-touch points on the first inspection day. This was dealt with immediately.
“On day one of the inspection and during an outbreak of COVID-19 staff were not as robust as they should have been regarding cleanliness of high touch points.” from the report
Late notifications
minorTwo required notifications were sent late when the registered manager was away. The manager said action would be taken to address this.
“Two notifications had been returned a little late when the registered manager was off.” from the report
- 01How often are fire drills now held in the evening and at weekends?
- 02How do you check and record cleaning of high-touch points during an infection outbreak?
- 03What changes were made to medicines management after the previous inspection?
- 04How do you make sure required notifications are sent on time when the registered manager is away?
- 05Which ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also considered under Safe; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management and inconsistent leadership, although people described kind staff and felt safe.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked medicines records, care information, recruitment records, audits and action plans.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Medicines records did not always show that medicines had been given as prescribed, which was a breach of Regulation 12. Staffing levels, supervision and staff deployment also needed review.
There had been several management changes and a history of non-compliance. A new manager was in post, and the provider had an action plan. People and relatives spoke positively about staff, infection control arrangements were in place, and people said they felt safe.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe at the home. Safeguarding systems were in place and incidents were analysed and monitored.
“The best thing is this is the first time I feel she is safe and I don't have to worry.” from the report
Kind and caring staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and the care they received.
“The staff are very friendly, very approachable, very caring, and very caring to the relatives too” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, protective equipment, testing and visiting arrangements were being managed appropriately.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Action was being taken
The provider had an overarching action plan and was taking steps to address issues, including medicines management. People and relatives also responded positively to the new manager.
“Audits and checks were carried out to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicines were not always managed safely. Records did not always demonstrate that medicines had been administered as prescribed.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. Records did not always demonstrate that medicines had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Staffing and supervision
needs fixingSome people and staff said more staff were needed. Staff also raised concerns about skill mix, supervision and how staff were allocated.
“Some people and staff said more staff would be appreciated.” from the report
Management stability
needs fixingSeveral management changes had affected morale and how the home was run. Inspectors recommended keeping management and support under review.
“There had been a number of management changes at the home over recent years.” from the report
Duty of candour records
minorThe home could not provide all the records needed to show that it had met its duties to be open and honest when things went wrong.
“Records were not fully available to demonstrate how the provider was meeting their responsibilities under the duty of candour.” from the report
Delayed incident notifications
needs fixingSeveral incidents were reported late to the local authority and CQC. The provider identified this and submitted the notifications immediately.
“There had been a delay in notifying the local authority and CQC of several incidents.” from the report
- 01What extra checks and training have been completed to make sure medicines are given and recorded correctly?
- 02How do you check that each person's medicines record matches what they have actually received?
- 03What staffing levels and skill mix are in place on each shift, and how are staff supervised and allocated?
- 04What has been done to improve management stability since this inspection?
- 05How do you now record and evidence what happens when a safety incident occurs?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Crofton Court
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.